(NaturalNews) For the last several years, HPV vaccines have been marketed to the public and mandated in compulsory injections for young girls in several states based on the idea that they prevent cervical cancer. Now, NaturalNews has obtained documents from the FDA and other sources (see below) which reveal that the FDA has been well aware for several years that Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) has no direct link to cervical cancer.

Just as an aside, I checked the US immigrations vaccination policy and as of 2009 the HPV vaccine is no longer mandated. A whole host of other ones are, but not that one.

pers

10-17-2012 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emmy526

(NaturalNews) For the last several years, HPV vaccines have been marketed to the public and mandated in compulsory injections for young girls in several states based on the idea that they prevent cervical cancer. Now, NaturalNews has obtained documents from the FDA and other sources (see below) which reveal that the FDA has been well aware for several years that Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) has no direct link to cervical cancer.

NaturalNews sought to verify the existence of the FDA news release referenced by this petition reclassification document and found that, indeed, the FDA news release exists. In fact, it's still posted on the FDA website athttp://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/...

In it, the FDA says, "The HPV DNA test is not intended to substitute for regular Pap screening. Nor is it intended to screen women under 30 who have normal Pap tests. Although the rate of HPV infection in this group is high,most infections are short-lived and not associated with cervical cancer." (Emphasis added.)

In other words, the FDA knew in 2003 that HPV infections are not associated with cervical cancer.

Furthermore, the FDA states, in the same press release, "Most women who become infected with HPV are able to eradicate the virus and suffer no apparent long-term consequences to their health."

In other words,HPV infections do not cause cervical cancer!Remember, the entire push for mandatory HPV vaccinations of young girls across the country has been the urgent call to "save" these young girls from cervical cancer. The vaccine push has been about "savings lives." But as these documents clearly reveal, HPV is no threat to the lives of young girls. In fact, as you will see below, HPV infections are naturally self-limiting!

Yes, his shocking revelation is that most HPV infections do not cause cervical cancer. Apparently this was news to him. I'm pretty sure that it is not news to anyone else. After all, don't we know that over half of all sexually active women have been infected with HPV at one point or another? And yet, the rates of cervical cancer are much, much lower than that, making it quite obvious that most infections don't result in cancer.

However, this is not at all the same as saying that there is no link between HPV and cervical cancer or that HPV never causes cervical cancer, as Addams is trying to spin it. Because while it is true that most cases of HPV infection do not result in cervical cancer, it is also true that virtually all cases of cervical cancer are the direct result of HPV infection.

What Adams is ignoring is that there are many different strains of HPV, and only a few of them cause cancer. Two strains (types 16 and 18) alone are responsible for 70% of cervical cancer cases. These are two of the strains Gardasil is intended to protect against.

Adams had another shocking revelations for us back on the first page of the link:

Quote:

NaturalNews has also learned that HPV vaccines have been proven to be flatly worthless in clearing the HPV virus from women who have already been exposed to HPV (which includes most sexually active women), calling into question the scientific justification of mandatory "vaccinate everyone" policies.

Who has claimed that the vaccine can be used to treat women who have already been exposed? That it can't be is exactly why they give it to girls as young as ten - because they are trying to make sure they get the full series before they are sexually active. Also, there is no "mandatory 'vaccinate everyone'" policy with Gardasil. It is on the schedule for girls at an age when we'd certainly hope the vast majority of them had had no sexual activity yet, and they are starting to have it for boys too, and also younger adults because there is a high enough chance that they hadn't been exposed yet. The FDA does not recommend it to women over the age of 26 due to the locking the barn door after the horse is already gone factor.

Marnica

10-17-2012 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pers

Wow, can Mike Adams ever spin things to fit his agenda.

The most relevant bit from that link:

Yes, his shocking revelation is that most HPV infections do not cause cervical cancer. Apparently this was news to him. I'm pretty sure that it is not news to anyone else. After all, don't we know that over half of all sexually active women have been infected with HPV at one point or another? And yet, the rates of cervical cancer are much, much lower than that, making it quite obvious that most infections don't result in cancer.

However, this is not at all the same as saying that there is no link between HPV and cervical cancer or that HPV never causes cervical cancer, as Addams is trying to spin it. Because while it is true that most cases of HPV infection do not result in cervical cancer, it is also true that virtually all cases of cervical cancer are the direct result of HPV infection.

What Adams is ignoring is that there are many different strains of HPV, and only a few of them cause cancer. Two strains (types 16 and 18) alone are responsible for 70% of cervical cancer cases. These are two of the strains Gardasil is intended to protect against.

Adams had another shocking revelations for us back on the first page of the link:

Again, this is news to who?

Who has claimed that the vaccine can be used to treat women who have already been exposed? That it can't be is exactly why they give it to girls as young as ten - because they are trying to make sure they get the full series before they are sexually active. Also, there is no "mandatory 'vaccinate everyone'" policy with Gardasil. It is on the schedule for girls at an age when we'd certainly hope the vast majority of them had had no sexual activity yet, and they are starting to have it for boys too, and also younger adults because there is a high enough chance that they hadn't been exposed yet. The FDA does not recommend it to women over the age of 26 due to the locking the barn door after the horse is already gone factor.

I agree.....bad spin. Provaccine advocates never use spin (yeah right). This is why everything one reads must be disected, researched and taken with a grain of salt no matter who says it.

Taximom5

10-17-2012 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marnica

I agree.....bad spin. Provaccine advocates never use spin (yeah right).

That's the best laugh I've had in a long time!!!

WildKingdom

10-17-2012 04:01 PM

I'm a bit leery of the lead author of this paper. She (or he) seems to only publish papers that have a strong anti-vax agenda.

It makes me curious about what her agenda is. Perhaps it has to do with her source of funding:

Quote:

If you are interested in more information on who provided the funding for this paper, the Dwoskin Foundation was the major supporter of a National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) conference (8). NVIC is an established anti-vaccination activist organization. The Katlyn Fox Foundation provides a veritable cornucopia of anti-vaccination propaganda (9). The authors reported these conflicts of interest, and the impact of the funding source on the product can only be guessed at.

^ Can you make a scientific or otherwise logically sound case against the conclusions and supporting claims of any of the aforesaid papers?

WildKingdom

10-17-2012 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turquesa

^ Can you make a scientific or otherwise logically sound case against the conclusions and supporting claims of any of the aforesaid papers?

see my post here, #58

I found 64 randomized placebo controlled double blind studies.

japonica

10-17-2012 08:35 PM

See, insinuating there's an agenda shouldn't be a surprise as many of the "pro-vaccine" studies likewise have an "agenda" and are also funded by persons and corporations who have an interest in the studies recommending a certain course of action. Yet, with studies that are funded (even partially) by drug companies, it's just called good science and nothing more is said about it.

I'd like to hear if there is a valid, scientific flaw in all of Tomljenovic's work. I've been asking for others to post rebuttals if they have them, proper peer-reviewed, scientifically valid, published ones, not just sniping in blog comments on the net, but so far, no one has been able to.

kathymuggle

10-17-2012 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WildKingdom

I'm a bit leery of the lead author of this paper. She (or he) seems to only publish papers that have a strong anti-vax agenda.

Many people have an area of interest.

I do not doubt that most of Offits stuff is on vaccines.

Saying someone focuses on this or that hardly makes them wrong in and of itself.

WildKingdom

10-18-2012 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by japonica

See, insinuating there's an agenda shouldn't be a surprise as many of the "pro-vaccine" studies likewise have an "agenda" and are also funded by persons and corporations who have an interest in the studies recommending a certain course of action. Yet, with studies that are funded (even partially) by drug companies, it's just called good science and nothing more is said about it.

I'd like to hear if there is a valid, scientific flaw in all of Tomljenovic's work. I've been asking for others to post rebuttals if they have them, proper peer-reviewed, scientifically valid, published ones, not just sniping in blog comments on the net, but so far, no one has been able to.

I'm just pointing out her conflicts of interest.

People seem to think it's very important to point them out anytime a pro-vax study is brought up (and it is important, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander).

As for your question about if there is a valid, scientific flaw in her work- well, she doesn't do her own research. As far as I can tell, all of her publications are letters to the editor, opinion articles, and reviews of other studies. No original work.

Taximom5

10-18-2012 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WildKingdom

I'm a bit leery of the lead author of this paper. She (or he) seems to only publish papers that have a strong anti-vax agenda.

So your definition of someone with an "anti-vax agenda" is anyone who studies and points out serious health risks of vaccines and flaws in the government agencies that promote and mandate those vaccines?

WildKingdom

10-18-2012 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5

So your definition of someone with an "anti-vax agenda" is anyone who studies and points out serious health risks of vaccines and flaws in the government agencies that promote and mandate those vaccines?

No. I am talking about a specific person who is funded by a group whose sole purpose is to try to relate autism to vaccines. Way to generalize my statement there. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

japonica

10-18-2012 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WildKingdom

I'm just pointing out her conflicts of interest.

People seem to think it's very important to point them out anytime a pro-vax study is brought up (and it is important, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander).

As for your question about if there is a valid, scientific flaw in her work- well, she doesn't do her own research. As far as I can tell, all of her publications are letters to the editor, opinion articles, and reviews of other studies. No original work.

I look at the funding and conflicts of interest for both "sides." Neither gets a free ride in my book.

As far as her work, some of her studies were done with Shaw and as far as I can tell, he does do his own neurological research. What her involvement is, I'm not certain.

Taximom5

10-18-2012 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WildKingdom

No. I am talking about a specific person who is funded by a group whose sole purpose is to try to relate autism to vaccines. Way to generalize my statement there. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

Aren't you putting words into the mouth (so to speak) of the Dworskin foundation?

They don't say that their sole purpose is to try to relate autism to vaccines.

For one thing, autism has already been shown in some cases to be related to vaccines. (Please reread the Hannah Poling case, as well as the cases of vaccine-induced brain damage that also included autism, at a rate far exceeding that of the normal population.)

Here are some statements from their "Causation" page:

Scientists do not know the cause of this dramatic surge in ASDs, but it’s likely that both genetics and environment play a role."

""Focus Autism does not believe that vaccines single-handedly cause most autism. We do feel, however, that they are an important contributory factor, particularly in the many cases of regression reported by parents and seen by physicians. Some children are susceptible to vaccine injury. Risk factors may include a family history of autoimmune or neurological disorders."

And then look at the mainstream science, peer-reviewed, published studies that Tomljenovic has gotten published. What do we see?

Oh, yes, that's right: SHE FOUND THAT VACCINES ARE LINKED WITH AUTISM, AND WITH SEVERAL MEDICAL CONDITIONS OFTEN ASSOCIATED WITH AUTISM, AS WELL AS WITH ALZHEIMER'S.

It's pretty obvious why shills for the vaccine industry are desperate to discredit her. A lot of money is at stake, and not just from vaccines. Vaccines are the tip of the iceberg. As you have pointed out, vaccines aren't even their biggest money maker, though they are certainly a several-billion-dollar-business. But if the corruption surrounding vaccines is really spotlighted, if they are no longer able to hide all the lies surrounding their studies on safety/efficacy, it's going to be a snowball effect. The same spotlight will be focused on ALL drugs, and not just tainted steroids from compounding pharmacies.

So, yeah, we will see plenty of efforts to discredit Tomljenovic and everyone else who questions/criticizes vaccine safety--from people who passionately defend Offit.

And that really says it all.

sciencemum

10-19-2012 04:41 AM

11 Attachment(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5

For one thing, autism has already been shown in some cases to be related to vaccines. (

The Autism Science Foundation Disagrees with this assessment. They say:

Quote:

There is no data to support an autism vaccine link. There never has been. Vaccines don’t cause autism.

And The Autism Science Foundation is not a biased organization? Guess who is on the board of directors................ none other than millionaire vaccine industrialist and AoA Denialist of the Decade Paul Offit.

kathymuggle

10-19-2012 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prosciencemum

The Autism Science Foundation Disagrees with this assessment. They say:

The autism science foundation believes autism is largely genetic, in early detection, and that vaccines save lives. I find the fact they start babbling about vaccines in their mission quite telling. Are they at heart really a more a pro-vax website than a autism science research website?

cynthia mosher

10-19-2012 10:28 AM

29 Attachment(s)

Wildkingdom, your comments are too personally pointed. Please keep your posts focused on discussing the topic or you will lose access to this thread.

Rrrrrachel

10-19-2012 11:06 AM

I think that Paul offit would probably feel honored to be called an age of autism denialist. It would fascinating to compare the work funded by aoa vs asf.

Taximom5

10-19-2012 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prosciencemum

The Autism Science Foundation Disagrees with this assessment. They say:

Quote:

There is no data to support an autism vaccine link. There never has been. Vaccines don’t cause autism.

So if Autism Science Foundation is asserting "there is no data to support a link. There never has been," they are clearly lying. There IS data supporting a vaccine-autism link. The independent studies showing such a link are certainly outnumbered by the vaccine industry's in-house studies that are carefully set up to conclude "no link!" But even if they are outnumbered, that certainly doesn't mean that they don't exist.

As for your question about if there is a valid, scientific flaw in her work- well, she doesn't do her own research. As far as I can tell, all of her publications are letters to the editor, opinion articles, and reviews of other studies. No original work.

So let's therefore dismiss all meta-analyses? All otherwise critical analyses of existing research?

Japonica paraphrased my request but said it more eloquently:

Quote:

Originally Posted by japonica

I'd like to hear if there is a valid, scientific flaw in all of Tomljenovic's work. I've been asking for others to post rebuttals if they have them, proper peer-reviewed, scientifically valid, published ones, not just sniping in blog comments on the net, but so far, no one has been able to.

We're asking for specifics. Can you offer anything other than sweeping statements?

Japonica asked if there was anything wrong with her research. TBH, I'm not sure, because all I've seen are abstracts. Have any of you read the actual articles? Even if her review looks great, it's still just preliminary research and you should be wary of drawing conclusions from it. It is not a meta-analysis. It is just a review of the existing literature.

Quote:

We're asking for specifics. Can you offer anything other than sweeping statements?

Specific enough for you?

emma1325

10-21-2012 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5

So if Autism Science Foundation is asserting "there is no data to support a link. There never has been," they are clearly lying. There IS data supporting a vaccine-autism link. The independent studies showing such a link are certainly outnumbered by the vaccine industry's in-house studies that are carefully set up to conclude "no link!" But even if they are outnumbered, that certainly doesn't mean that they don't exist.

How interesting--and telling--that they would lie like that.

But those don't count, you see.

japonica

10-21-2012 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WildKingdom

Japonica asked if there was anything wrong with her research. TBH, I'm not sure, because all I've seen are abstracts. Have any of you read the actual articles? Even if her review looks great, it's still just preliminary research and you should be wary of drawing conclusions from it. It is not a meta-analysis. It is just a review of the existing literature.

I have read those two and a few others. I'm not a biochemist or neuroscientist. I appreciate the issues involved and the argument Tomljenovic is making. However, like I mentioned, it would be helpful to have a specific, valid, professional critique of her science. Sniping on a blog is not a professional critique nor satisfactory rebuttal of her work IMO.

WildKingdom

10-21-2012 05:00 PM

Again, both of those articles are just reviews of literature. I have no idea if she cherry-picked data or not, that's why systematic reviews of literature are really not that valuable on their own. They are used in one of two ways: 1) as a jumping off point to develop a hypothesis, which is then tested, or 2) to use a large series off ALL data that meets criteria to do a meta-analysis.

Overall, I would consider all of these studies to be a much higher quality of evidence than what you linked, japonica, by virtue of the fact that they are meta-analyses, not just reviews of literature.

Also, I'm not sniping when I point out her conflicts of interest. They are legit. She has the same three sources of funding for both articles- one is the Katlyn Fox Foundation- founded by parents who feel their daughter's death was due to vaccines; The Dworskin foundation, already discussed above; and the Lotus Foundation. I have no idea what the Lotus foundation is- my computers malware safety program won't let me open it, saying it's an unsafe site. That doesn't speak well to its legitimacy.